Summations Only

Why do they all have to be the same? He's the only president all the way back to Nixon and beyond who doesn't have to answer to any special interest organization that helped elect him. If it makes him a little more quick witted and unafraid of biased news reporters, what's wrong with that?

quote:

---

...much of the media doesn't get it. They actually get it, but they don't write it.
...
...many of our nation's reporters and folks will not tell you the truth...
...
The press has become so dishonest...
...
...the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.

---

Many people believe these things to be true. Did you hear the knee-jerk news report that Trump removed the MLK statue from the oval office? This lie was a few weeks ago, it did get more attention than countless other lies the news media slips in to their reports.

quote:

---

I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan

---

He's made a few stupid mistakes, as did Obama. It's only appalling if you hate him. I've seen comments like "I think I'm beginning to like this guy" on the net, after that press conference. He has a personality, he doesn't have the deer-in-the-headlights look like so many past presidents who couldn't wait for it to be over, so they can go back to the White House and do nothing, or go on vacation. As he said, he enjoyed it. He's been doing that kind of thing all his life and he thrives on it. He's a leader. I'm honestly not sure what you mean when you say you "loved" it. Was it sarcasm, you believe he can't do anything about lobbying or corruption, and should give up on it, or you believe it's a good idea for him to address it? If it's the latter, I would hope it would counteract some of your personal dislike of him.

And there are those of us who believe the news media defines honesty as saying anything it wants, and not saying things that favor Trump even if they are true. How is he "dictating"? Doesn't he have the right to say what he thinks? Having a free press goes both ways. They're not constitutionally protected from criticism. From anyone, including the president.

How absolutely true it is is subjective, I and many others find it to be more true than completely false. It's his style to be blunt to forcefully get his point across. Some people require bluntness to understand something. It's who the people elected. A retraction with an apology doesn't heal all the damage. Some casual viewers of any little bits of news don't always get the message. There are still a number of people who believe he removed it. I believe the news media sometimes does that intentionally, for sensationalism purposes. Tell a lie, then quietly retract it when caught, knowing that a certain number of people don't hear the retraction. Why should they be afraid to do it, there's no law against it. It only takes a small spark to irreversibly outrage black racists, which makes for great ratings. And yes, I'll readily admit that Fox News is just as guilty, but no more guilty, than the rest.My earlier reference to ABC World News Tonight using a skit from Saturday Night Live's use of clowns to portray Sean Spicer and others, as objective news reporting, is enough for them and others to try to understand Trump's blunt words about the press. Another is from back in 1994, when I distinctly remember then World News Tonight's Peter Jennings claiming that (the 1994 Republican House and Senate victories) was a result of "the voters had a temper tantrum".These things can't be labeled as pure lies, but today's mainstream news reporting is loaded with these types of distortions. It's easy to mislead people who aren't paying too much attention, today's news reporters are masters at it. He couldn't have become a billionaire if he had all those problems. Thin skinned?? He's actually incredibly thick skinned, considering all the hate he's been fielding from the left ever since he announced his candidacy. He's able to remain focused on his campaign promises in spite of it all, at age 70. Unify the country? Do you think those who laughed at him and mocked him and ridiculed the thought of him becoming president for 18 months are going to be unified? Did Obama set a good example for him to unify, considering Obama was out golfing when there were race riots going on in Baltimore and other places? The U.S. is almost $20 trillion in debt. I can guarantee you that his voters didn't vote for a honeymoon. And you believe Trump is less capable of addressing that than the alternative, Hillary Clinton, or Sanders?

I'm waiting for him to say that the founders intended for the constitution to apply to all people of the world. Once he does that, I'm turning on him!!

No, you'd have to refer back to what I was actually responding to. Claims of the extent of just how dishonest the news media is, is subjective. We probably have different definitions of thick, or thin skins. To me he would have a thin skin if he didn't respond at all to the abuse he takes. Or started crying in public like Chuck Schumer. Or quit his presidential run and took his billions and went home. He seemed to enjoy the press conference, in spite of all the hate around him. No stammering, no deer-in-the-headlights look, no red face at all. That takes a thick skin. And you're pretending that if Trump would have propped up his feet and done nothing for a while that his opponents and the press would have let bygones be bygones? And had no criticism of him? Obama had his honeymoon, and got his cabinet in place long before Trump has. How did he do that on his honeymoon? By having Republican opponents accepting the fact that he won, and not blocking his every move in the first month of his presidency? The good thing is, there is no formal evaluation period of his presidency after only one month. The first major evaluation comes in 2018 when, if he's as terrible as you say, the house and senate will be taken over by the opposition, like happened to Clinton in 1994. We'll see if that happens!

Trump is only one guy, only prominently in the news for 18 months. Am I allowed the past few decades of news reporting? I'd say I could easily outnumber yours by, 10 to 1 if I had just a little more time than I actually have. But I can do a few;

quote:

---

Walter Duranty and the Holodomor:The mother of all fake news stories must beNew York Timesreporter Walter Duranty helping Stalin’s Russia conceal the Holodomor from the world. Duranty helped the communists cover upone of the worst crimes against humanity ever perpetrated, the forced starvation of over 1.5 million people in Ukraine between 1932 and 1933.

​

This was the worst of many lies Duranty told in the service of Soviet communism. His fake news helped sell communism to impressionable people around the world and changed the course of history. It’s one of two fake news itemson this list sanctified with a Pulitzer Prize, which has not been revoked despite strong calls to do so. (In essence, the Pulitzer committee insists Duranty deserves his prize for everything he wrote thatwasn’tan outrageous lie.)

​

TheNew York Timesinstitutionally refuses to condemn Duranty or acknowledge the depths of his deception, portraying him as the victim of Stalin’s powerful and omnipresentpropaganda machine — an excuse heard again from the mainstream media in other settings over the years, when they explain how they had to play ball with horrible dictatorships in order to gain access. CNN executive Eason Jordan’s 2003 explanation for why his network concealed so much grisly news from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is a prime example.

---

quote:

---

Janet Cooke’s imaginary 8-year-old heroin addict:The fake news manufactured byWashington Postreporter Janet Cooke received a Pulitzer Prize, but unlike Duranty’s, it was revoked after her deception was uncovered.

---

quote:

---

Dateline NBC rigs a truck to explode: In 1993, NBC News delivered a historic public apology for staging the test crash of a General Motors pickup truck for the Dateline NBC program. The reporters wanted to demonstrate that gas could leak from the truck’s fuel tank and cause a dangerous fire after a crash, so they rigged it with explosives.
We deeply regret we included the inappropriate demonstration in our ‘Dateline’ report. We apologize to our viewers and to General Motors. We have also concluded that unscientific demonstrations should have no place in hard news stories at NBC. That’s our new policy, the statement declared, leading viewers with some unresolved questions about why it wasn’t their old policy, too.
Dateline NBC was far from the only example of dubious product-safety reporting. It wasn’t even the first time a vehicle was rigged to explode for a major network consumer report.

---

quote:

---

Jayson Blair: New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was investigated by his newspaper in 2003 and accused of inventing numerous reports. He was especially prone to inventing news reports supposedly filed from other cities, while he was in fact working from his apartment in Brooklyn. However, the scandal that ultimately prompted his resignation involved accusations of plagiarism in a story he filed about the family of a soldier missing in Iraq.

---

12 Fake News Stories from the Mainstream MediaOh wait, but you may only be talking about lies about Trump. Here's a starter list;http://www.newsmax.com/...st-media-lies/2015/07/25/id/658877Running out of time for a lot of c/p ing tonight, maybe I can play more later this week. If you and all your helpers poison my wells, I might have to call into question your sources for Trump's "lies", including the tremendous hate he's enduring at the time of them.

Before I get into that, I'd like to refer back to something you said earlier, in message 432; It's important to realize that Trump is fully justified to include more than just media lies recently about him, but about past, premeditated, carefully planned blatant lies like NBC's rigging of GM trucks with explosives, or the many intentional lies of Jason Blair of the NY Times. Trump is a New Yorker, Blair's lies could have possibly hit closer to home with him than many people realize. If you disagree, then please explain to me why the press should be immune from an "attack" of nothing more than free speech.But to satisfy your request, here's a list of media lies, in headlines;

quote:

---

The New York Times:Trump’s claim that illegal Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.

​

Time Magazine:Trump’s comment that Mexican immigrants are ‘rapists.’

​

Associated Press:Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals

​

CBS News:Trump defends calling Mexican immigrants ‘rapists.’

​

L.A. Times:describing Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’

​

Fortune:in a speech branding Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists.

​

Hollywood Reporter:he referred to Mexican immigrants as ‘rapists.’
Huffington Post: He called Latino immigrants ‘criminals’ and ‘rapists.’

​

The Washington Post: He referred to Mexicans as rapists.

---

A college professor, (supposedly liberal, but that doesn't matter) got a wake up call when listening to his brainwashed students answers to questions about Trump, and they aroused his curiosity about a thing called "truth". This link explains what he found;WINNING369 - Situs Slot Online Pagcor Terpercaya 2022 - IDN POKERA few brief paragraphs from that link;

quote:

---

Every single one of these news outlets purposefully lied to their readers and have continued to do so after every controversial comment made by Trump.

---

It is persistent, blatant lying.

quote:

---

For example,Politicomisquoted Trump by omitting his phrase about good people. They said he was demonizing Mexicans as rapists. They argued that Mexicans do not really commit more rapes in the U.S. than whites. But that’s not what Trump claimed.

​

Martinez goes on to list the headlines that various mainstream media outlets came up with in response to Trump’s comments and they read like an Orwellian attempt at altering reality.

---

ALTERING REALITY. Now, moving on to another link which refers to the same lies;Media Lies and Media Bias: Why Trump is Under Attack ~ VALLEY PATRIOT EDITORIAL (7-15) – The Valley Patriot

quote:

---

CNN’s Brook Baldwin actually reported: Donald Trump called all Mexicans rapists and killers following up by calling his remarks Anti-Mexican and that Trump called all immigrants killers.

​

It was simply an outright lie. But Baldwin was not alone. Every news outlet followed by repeating the lie over and over again in the hopes that stupid people will be outraged.

​

They succeeded.

---

But outright lies like this aren't the news media's main method of deception, it's the more subtle twisting and distorting that really works for them. Let's look at this example;

quote:

---

Every time President-elect Donald Trump names a cabinet pick, liberals have a field day how can they paint a Trump pick as racist, elitist, extremist, and all-around evil? These attacks reached a fever pitch against Trump's selection for secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

---

7 Desperate Liberal Lies About Trump's Education Pick Betsy DeVos – PJ MediaThis goes on to explain how something she said was taken of context, and used to completely mis-represent what her position on public schools actually is.

quote:

---

Strauss took a quote, divorced it from context, and then labeled Betsy an opponent of public education writ large. It's among the most dishonest reporting I've seen in 20 years.

---

I'm not sure what he was referring to from 20 years ago, it's been about 24 years since NBC rigged explosives in their "crash test". Unlike Jar's claim, that one wasn't exposed by the news media. It was exposed by a non-NBC person, if I remember right it was GM themselves, who slowed the video down, and freeze framed it showing the explosion starting before there was any contact. If it wasn't for that, NBC would have gotten by with it. The news media never retracts and apologizes because of their conscience, or policing by themselves, they apologize and retract for one reason only, that they got caught.This was more dishonest, more potentially harmful to our society, than anything that happened at Watergate, yet a president was brought down for it. NBC wasn't brought down, this episode was kept relatively quiet, as far as I know no new laws were passed regarding news media lies and distortions.Trump is justified for coarse criticism of the news media for this event alone. Since this kind of planned dishonesty was very present during his entire campaign, and he won the election in spite of it, it shows that the general public is waking up. Polls show that the public trusts what Trump says more than they trust today's news media.

I saw this at the beginning of ABC World News Tonight last evening. The reporter said it was a "surprise" announcement, but didn't elaborate on just what the surprise was about, or who was surprised.I find this ABC link this morning;iview

quote:

---

But the choice of 54-year-old General McMaster who is known as the Iconoclast General has surprised some observers who are wondering how the Trump administration would deal with a military strongman known for questioning authority.

---

There's that word again, apparently "some observers" are news media wolves who are looking for a reason to attack Trump for it. Maybe they should stick to actually reporting news, and only cover any of their unforeseen "surprises" when they actually occur?

You referred to a book with no elaboration of it at all. Difficult for me to respond if you're going to violate forum rule #5.If you'll give a very basic summary of your book reference, I'll express my thanks by giving a basic summary of a book I've read concerning judicial activism, when I get back to the ~the-whole-world-has-U.S.-Constitutional-rights thread. It's not a first indication for those who know the FIRST THING about Trump and his lifetime of successes, and that is that he has largely gotten things done not by doing them himself, but by choosing the right person/people for a job, and holding them accountable for getting it done.

It's about the Trump presidency, and we've gotten into a discussion about news media dishonesty. That dishonesty didn't begin with Trump's presidential campaign, and Trump would probably be reacting differently if it did. I think he's seen past presidents show fear and intimidation of the news media, and he feels it's long past time for someone to stand up to it. I'm done for now referencing news media lies before 2015. The ones I've referenced above were quite enough to make my points. (to anyone not hopelessly closed minded, that is) Sorry, they are not. By leaving out "some I assume, are good people", it COMPLETELY changes what he implies about Mexican people, and what his intentions, his motivations might be. And what could result from them. News media dishonesty can spiral public opinion out of control. We're seeing it largely in foreign countries, who don't have a more personal experience of just what's going on in the U.S. I'm now reminded of an exchange you and NoNukes had in another thread, just the same day I had a death in the family and couldn't respond to at that time. It went like this; And now we've found a third person who finds no fact so firm that it can't be explained away in his own mind if it conflicts with his opinion. "Any examples"? So you've disregarded most of my message 460? Disregarded the one about the MLK statue being removed? Okay, I'll come up with some more, and I'll bet this time they'll register, and even if it "conflicts with your opinion", you won't be like the sinister Faith and marc9000, and you'll concede the point, right?"You still haven't been able to provide any examples of persistent lies and dishonesty", but wait, now the word "persistent" has been magically introduced. Not sure how persistent these will be, but lets find out.

quote:

---

Many mainstream news outlets have been abuzz about the headline going around saying that Trump may ‘evict’ the press corp from accessing the White House, but when one looks deeper into what is being written in such articles it quickly becomes clear that there is nothing official stated about disallowing any press from the White House.

---

and, to summarize it;

quote:

---

Look to the Blaze for how this is spun into a narrative which serves the dual purpose of agitating Trump’s detractors into believing that he is going to suppress the freedom of the press and at the same time serves as a rouse to cause his ardent supporters to appear as though they are rejoicing at the potential of a Trump Presidency that would support suppressing the free press. When comparing the actual quotes with the editorial it is obvious that The Blaze and other mainstream media outlets are playing a wicked game of deceit to further the attempts at demonizing the incoming President.

---

More Fake News: Mainstream Media Lies About Trump 'Evicting' White House Press Corp - 21st Century WireNow for another one. For some reason I can't c/p from this one, so if you don't check the link, you won't get much out of it, though I'll summarize it the best I can.The Media's Latest Lie About Trump EXPOSED!It shows 6 headlines, all screaming about ominous "gag orders" that Trump is putting on scientists, USDA officials, Dept. of Agriculture, "several government agencies". But the headlines can't be called lies, because later in the more fine print, the NY Times admits that this is routine for any new presidential administration."not much different from those delivered by Obama", "I don't think it's fair to call it a gag order", and "this is standard practice....when a new administration comes in".So you can tell me the headlines aren't lies, but they are dishonest.It's the news media, more than anything else, that has worked so many people into a frenzy that they're still staging these stupid protests, like they had more of on yesterday's holiday. Going from memory, I think a recent poll shows that the U.S. general public generally believes what Trump says at a margin of 49%. The percentage is 38% for what percentage of them believes the mainstream news media. So maybe someone besides conservatives need to think about discarding some partisanship.Now, take off with those goalposts again! Tell me I haven't shown you a single example of media bias and dishonesty. We'll see who has the most staying power.

Different people have different lifestyles and interests, and any news story in a widely recognized position, in print form, is going to be read progressively less and less as it moves from the headline to the last sentence. From a quick glace at the headline only, to a thorough reading of the whole thing. Every imaginable progression, by many people.In my earlier (as I remember) school years, probably elementary school in the 1960's, we were taught a few basics about newspaper stories, how the information should start off basic with the headline, and progress steadily into more detail right until the end, keeping in mind that it will be read progressively less as it goes. Today - recently, I'm noticing headlines that can give a completely false impression if read by themselves, without getting slightly, or largely conflicting information later in the story. I can describe an example or two, but it would probably stray too far off topic for you. Not to the extent that I believe there should be laws against them, but Democrat Lincoln Chafee recently put it very well, when he said all this is getting "tiresome", and it's time to "let him get his feet under him and try to build an administration, and move on".Page not found | IJR?Chafee (another 2016 Democrat presidential candidate) knows something about news media bias - he got very little time to speak during last years debates, because the Democrat leadership and news media had already picked who their candidate was going to be. Trump is the excuse, but he's really only a small part of it. A big part of the outrage is with the people who voted for Trump. Another part of it is a complete lack of respect or knowledge of just how the U.S. election system actually works. We've heard it trumpeted "Hillary won the popular vote!!!" enough times to see that.Today's news media is largely the children and grandchildren of the early 70's news media that took out Nixon. Nixon was hated, and he was a big prize for them. Today's news media wants Trump's head 100 times more, because his justified criticism of them hurts their widdle feewings.If you think other countries alarm about Trump are only due to Trump's actions, you could consider re-thinking that one too. The U.S. is a superpower, there is a lot of patriotism, and some foreign citizens and governments can easily take that as arrogance. As we're seeing on another recent thread here, the U.S. constitution is slowly eroding into a re-written excuse to protect illegal immigrants. The claims that parts of the U.S. constitution applies to the entire world is probably something many foreign leaders and citizens aren't too crazy about. And with good reason. I don't think a lot of what goes on in other cultures is any of the U.S.'s business. This is a feeling towards the U.S. that is in no way Trump's fault. One of Trump's biggest problems is the Obama care issue. No matter how it gets replaced, it will be reported as "not as good as" Obama care. Medical costs, the latest technology, research and development, is very expensive. As is 8 years or more of medical school for doctors, and medical malpractice insurance that they have to have. The costs have to be paid by someone. We have too many people who live largely on donuts and beer, and want access to the very latest in medical technology and lavish hospital stays when it catches up with them, and they expect it to be fully paid by someone else. Trump doesn't have a magic wand, he's going to get blamed no matter what he does, or even if he were to do nothing.We'll just have to keep watching the news, and see if they believe a 39% approval rating is good enough for their ratings and subsequent advertising and sales. They've got around 30% in the bag, that's the number of closed-minded liberals this country has that will believe ANYTHING negative they have to say about Trump, no matter what. But will they be able to hang on to that other 9%, and will those who believe Trump move on up past 50%? We should find out soon.

I didn't forget, I just didn't include it because it's totally meaningless. Not only because it isn't how elections are decided in the U.S., but because I, for one, have not one iota more respect for the inner-city mob vote than I do for illegal alien votes. Trump has personality issues, some are amused by them, some hate him for them. I don't care either way, as long as he does what he said he would do during the campaign. So far he has. I'm not sure he actually put a number on the voter fraud issue. It could have only been two million illegal aliens, with the other million courtesy of inner-city mobs. If you Democrats want to believe there's absolutely NO voter fraud in the U.S., go ahead and object to any investigation of it. I heard a few years ago that in the Philadelphia area, there were precincts that showed NO votes at all for Romney. No one, even Democrats, should condone, or look the other way, at possibilities of voter fraud. He's made no more mistakes than other presidents before him, in their first 6 months or year in office. The reason it took them so much longer to make theirs is because that's how long it took them to attempt to actually get something done. Long sentences? Is there any stone left unturned for the left to dream up things to criticize him for?

One of the major newspapers from years ago in my area (out of business now, still on the net, but not paper) had one characteristic that was/is normal for liberal newspapers, they hated the trucking industry. Several years ago, a pickup and a car collided on a local interstate, and both of them ended up in the grass alongside the interstate. The headline read; TRUCK CRASH INJURES TWO, along with a picture of the accident scene. No problem right? The problem is, the picture was taken from a high elevation from a hill several hundred feet away, and the mangled remains of the car and pickup were at the bottom of the picture, a small in insignificant part of the picture. What was the main, attention getting part of the picture, right in the center? A tractor-trailer going by. It had nothing at all to do with the accident, the picture was snapped at that moment to mislead anyone who just skimmed headlines and pictures.Another example - an accident from my area in 1988 was the "Carrolton Bus Crash", I'm sure you heard of it, a freak accident where a mini-pickup hit a full-sized bus head on, a glancing blow, enough that no one was seriously hurt by the collision, but the bus caught fire. The driver of the pickup was described in more than one headline as a "truck driver", in spite of the fact that the proper definition of a truck driver is one who drives a truck for a living, almost always a heavy truck. The implication for those not paying close attention was that a tractor trailer driver ruthlessly killed 27 people. It's dishonest, yet they can't technically be held accountable for misleading in either one of those headlines.These two examples are similar to the games that are played by the news media against Trump.

Well yes. But he IS doing something, and there's no evidence that his voters are complaining. It failed long before he was elected, it's a significant reason he was elected. I haven't had a chance to get to that other thread yet but I intend to, maybe tonight or the next evening or two. I haven't even checked that one lately to see what kind of a wreck it has become. That one begs for a response. (other thread) But as you can see in my above response to dwise1, sometimes reading the whole article doesn't make the dishonesty go away.

And now, all the Democrats have to do is oppose anything Trump/Republicans want to do. Is there really any difference? It is for Republicans, because they actually have some diversity in believing what's best for current and future generations. The Democrats haven't had that problem for the past several decades. They're united - GROW THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT. It's all that matters to them. Things like weighing benefits of government action or inaction between different generations means nothing to them. Their only complication is dreaming up ways to convince the majority of their voters that they're stripping SOMEONE ELSE of their liberties and money, not them.